7 ms·

IE9 is the IE6 of CSS3

96 points by toni 16y ago

Indyan 16y ago
Not surprised. Btw, how does other browsers like Opera and Safari perform in the same test?
loarabia 16y ago
That seems a bit sensational considering IE9 is in Beta . . .
- contextfree 16y ago
  This isn't even the beta, it's one of the earlier preview versions.
ghurlman 16y ago
So - it works in Webkit and Webkit, and not IE9 Beta. How's it look in Firefox, Opera, etc?
rufo 16y ago
Source, please.
- estel 16y ago
  Its non-inclusion throws this whole demonstration into question, imo.
xentronium 16y ago
> IE9 is the IE6 of CSS3 No. Two points: 1) IE9 is still beta 2) CSS3 is still beta
- CWuestefeld 16y ago
  From what MS has said, #2 is crucial. They've stated that precisely because of the staying power of IE6, they need to ensure that the next version adopted doesn't get stuck with proposed/intended standards that wind up not materializing. I don't necessarily like this, but I can see some wisdom in it.
  - lenni 16y ago
    The right solution would be to have more frequent feature updates.
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      Upvoted, but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity. Corporate IT reasonably finds this attractive even in the face of its downsides. So the lesson if you're gonna be Microsoft and you're gonna have few releases seems to be: pick the standards (de jure or de facto) that seem very likely to have a good chance of being widely-adopted, keeping in mind that you have huge influence over that variable since you control the most widely-used browser in the world, especially if you make your moves wisely and with high quality.
      - lenni 16y ago
        I understand why Microsoft is doing it, but I still know this is against my best interest.
      - StrawberryFrog 16y ago
        but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity In theory. yes. In practice, it doesn't seem to work like that. Firefox and Chrome get automatically updated quite rapidly, so the current version is the only very important one.
        glhaynes 16y ago
        You're talking about benefits to the progression of the browser. I'm talking about [perceived, at least] benefits to the user (large corporations) of the browser.
        StrawberryFrog 16y ago
        Who else other than the user would the benefits go to? Web developer maybe, but their interests are aligned, unless you like being stuck using a IE6-only site during the day, and weeping when you compare it to the modern internet that you use in the evenings.
glhaynes 16y ago
While I can't say I really disbelieve the spirit of the demonstration (past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, but it often ain't a bad approximation), it'd sure be nice to see more information, especially the source code used. Anybody who's done some web development would have to look at those screenshots and think "all those differences could be due to just one tag/directive that's being interpreted differently by IE9"... and that different interpretation could conceivably even be more in-line with the spec than what the other browsers do (whether that's a "good" thing or not is a different discussion). So, if I had to bet, I wouldn't put my money on Microsoft being the ones in the right here... but I don't like comparing browsers' standards compliance solely based on screenshots.
- alttab 16y ago
  I was thinking this same thing. Glad I found it posted already. I know this is hogwash because I've made that exact IPhone interface in HTML/CSS3 for IE7, IE8, Webkit Browsers, and FF. Sure, the IE versions didn't have rounded corners or even shadows for that matter but it didn't look retarded. I would guess that the author hasn't been developing cross-browser web applications professionally for any significant length of time. IE does some dumb things with hasLayout and floating, so you generally avoid them. It also wasn't clear that the author knew that Safari and Chrome use the same rendering engine. Even with IE9 and their dumb syntax, its not impossible to learn how to make something look freaking sweet in modern browsers, and passable in IE. This position of course costs businesses thousands of dollars a year running VMs for compatibility. It makes it worse that IE9 doesn't run on XP. The entire post is a little link baity, but I certainly understand the frustration.
  - rimantas 16y ago
    I've made that exact IPhone interface in HTML/CSS3 for IE7, IE8, Webkit Browsers, and FF. Sure, the IE versions didn't have rounded corners or even shadows for that matter but it didn't look retarded. So it did not have rounded corners and shadows but it was somehow exact? Interesting. Could you elaborate more, what CSS3 have you got working on IE7, IE8?
magamiako 16y ago
I like how he says he'll "prove it" without providing the actual source to what he's writing so people can download it and review. Also, I do believe IE9 has beta 5 out for the preview builds. He might want to look into that before going off about Platform Preview 4. Also, he's mistaken about MS' RC's. RC does not mean "1 version before gold", it could be 2 or 3 versions before final for that matter.
mojuba 16y ago
The web site I'm working on at the moment will reject IE altogether. I'm doing this for the first time ever in my career. A bit risky, I know. Just looked at some of my pages in IE8/9 and realized how much work I saved by not supporting this nonsensical monster that is Internet Explorer.
- lenni 16y ago
  What is the website's audience and is it private or for work? Whenever I've done side projects, I just build it for modern browsers and then maybe make it just a bit better than not working on the most recent IE.
- Niten 16y ago
  That seems sort of user-hostile, but hey, it's your call. I don't consider even IE 8 to be a burden any more. It doesn't get some CSS effects right, but stuff generally renders OK without modification. I can sort of understand blocking IE 8 if you really don't want people to see your site without border-radius or whatever, and if you don't feel like taking the time to patch it up with conditional code, and if all those lost visitors don't matter to you... But so far I've found IE 9 to be spot-on. Are you experiencing a rendering glitch with the latest beta? If not for rendering issues, then what's to be gained by blocking potential visitors or users just because you don't like their choice of software?
- masklinn 16y ago
  > The web site I'm working on at the moment will reject IE altogether. That is... dumb. Just don't to anything, it'll look broken in IE but no more. If you want to do something specifically about IE, add some kind of warning bar with a conditional comment. You have no idea what the future holds, and locking out a whole line of browsers out of a site is stupid.
  - MichaelGG 16y ago
    And please, if you add a warning, make it to the effect of "Hey, we know there's an issue with your browser, sorry.", instead of some line about IE being evil and standards and so on.
maerek 16y ago
This is a poorly written article for two main reasons: 1) No source code. 2) Incomplete test results. Why showcase two webkit engine based web browsers (Safari and Chrome) but not include a screenshot from Firefox? 3) Factual inconsistencies. FTA:"The IE team have been chanting a mantra ad nauseum : Same Markup. That means, write once and have it render the same on all browsers. Funny, but the other browsers have been doing that for years. Seems, from the images above that it’s IE that’s unable to render the same markup." Last I checked, implementing transitions/background gradients (etc.) in CSS required a separate line for webkit, mozilla, etc.
- fleitz 16y ago
  Yeah I was going to comment to that effect. While the syntax is the same for rounded corners for gradients even though they use -moz and -webkit prefixes the actual syntax for the gradient is different.
ck2 16y ago
We need to start promoting ChromeFrame to every single IE user on as many sites as possible. http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ It will solve the IE6/7/8/9 issue. The only problem is machines without the privileges to install it.
- cmelbye 16y ago
  Google needs to see if they can allow unprivileged users to install it (it would presumably only work on the current user, but that's better than nothing.) I'd love to use it at school, but it requires an administrator.
  - jawee 16y ago
    I can load it up on my school account, but DeepFreeze keeps it off regardless. I expect between security features like DeepFreeze and user policies it would not be possible.
zacharypinter 16y ago
I wonder if he was in quirks mode by not having an appropriate doctype tag?
masklinn 16y ago
No. That's stupid. IE6 was IE6 because for more than 5 years it was the last browser of its line. The "IE8 is the new IE6" claims at least have some meat to them: IE8 is the last (edit: MS) browser running on Windows XP which means as long as Windows XP exists in significant numbers so does IE8, but this is nonsense: Firefox, Safari and Chrome are not going back into their hole, which means IE9 will not be an undisputed champion of anything which means IE9 will not be the last IE ever to run on Windows Vista and Windows 7 (unless microsoft decides to get out of the browser market entirely, but I don't see that happening). Thus IE9 can not be the new IE6. It might not be the best browser ever, but IE10 will come next and improve it, and IE11 after it. If you're grasping for parallels, IE9 is the IE5 of CSS3, not the IE6.
- schammy 16y ago
  What I wish is that Microsoft would just give up on MSIE. For its time, IE6 was the shit. But they let it linger for what, 6 years? Meanwhile Firefox started being awesome, and now we also have Chrome which seems to be setting the standard these days. As a web developer, MSIE has caused me nothing but hell. Versions 7 and 8 improved a lot, but they still have very annoying headaches that I am constantly dealing with. One of my biggest fantasies is Microsoft one day realizing how much they HURT rather than HINDER the web, and just throwing in the towel. "We give up." Developing their own browser does nothing for Microsoft anyways. It's not like using MSIE makes you special or makes your brand awareness of Microsoft any stronger. If they had any forethought for the future, they would just give up now. One can fantasize, anyways... :P
  - willfully_lost 16y ago
    IE is worth a lot to Microsoft because of Bing. Google pays Mozilla for Google search being on the toolbar. Chrome is Google. IE is the only browser that would have Bing be the default search engine. That's worth a good amount of money to them - I can't seem them throwing up the white flag.
    - schammy 16y ago
keltex 16y ago
Lets not forget that the main problem with IE6 was that it was the primary vector that infected millions of computers with viruses and created the gigantic botnets we have today. Sure IE6's CSS compatibility and other rendering quirks are issues, but it was far overshadowed by the huge security hole it created.
Slimy 16y ago
THIS IS DATED AUGUST 14, 2010. THE IE9 BETA WASN'T EVEN OUT. Stop blindly upvoting.
- est 16y ago
  > Don’t believe me? OK, I’ll prove it. I have the latest Beta 4 of IE9, in Microsoft speak that means the version before Release Candidate The author is definitely a troll here.
mpiccino 16y ago
The problem I constantly find with all IE versions is that they render fonts much bigger than other browsers, so they constantly make things crowded and cause items (e.g. the About button on that screen shot) fall to the next time. It's immensely frustrating.
kokor 16y ago
1 word. BETA. Fucking fanboys are really lame.
devmonk 16y ago
What about Opera?

96 points by toni 16y ago

Indyan 16y ago

Not surprised. Btw, how does other browsers like Opera and Safari perform in the same test?

loarabia 16y ago

That seems a bit sensational considering IE9 is in Beta . . .

contextfree 16y ago
This isn't even the beta, it's one of the earlier preview versions.

ghurlman 16y ago

So - it works in Webkit and Webkit, and not IE9 Beta. How's it look in Firefox, Opera, etc?

rufo 16y ago

Source, please.

estel 16y ago
Its non-inclusion throws this whole demonstration into question, imo.

xentronium 16y ago

> IE9 is the IE6 of CSS3 No. Two points: 1) IE9 is still beta 2) CSS3 is still beta

CWuestefeld 16y ago
From what MS has said, #2 is crucial. They've stated that precisely because of the staying power of IE6, they need to ensure that the next version adopted doesn't get stuck with proposed/intended standards that wind up not materializing. I don't necessarily like this, but I can see some wisdom in it.
- lenni 16y ago
  The right solution would be to have more frequent feature updates.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    Upvoted, but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity. Corporate IT reasonably finds this attractive even in the face of its downsides. So the lesson if you're gonna be Microsoft and you're gonna have few releases seems to be: pick the standards (de jure or de facto) that seem very likely to have a good chance of being widely-adopted, keeping in mind that you have huge influence over that variable since you control the most widely-used browser in the world, especially if you make your moves wisely and with high quality.
    - lenni 16y ago
      I understand why Microsoft is doing it, but I still know this is against my best interest.
    - StrawberryFrog 16y ago
      but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity In theory. yes. In practice, it doesn't seem to work like that. Firefox and Chrome get automatically updated quite rapidly, so the current version is the only very important one.
      - glhaynes 16y ago
        You're talking about benefits to the progression of the browser. I'm talking about [perceived, at least] benefits to the user (large corporations) of the browser.
        StrawberryFrog 16y ago
        Who else other than the user would the benefits go to? Web developer maybe, but their interests are aligned, unless you like being stuck using a IE6-only site during the day, and weeping when you compare it to the modern internet that you use in the evenings.

glhaynes 16y ago

While I can't say I really disbelieve the spirit of the demonstration (past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results, but it often ain't a bad approximation), it'd sure be nice to see more information, especially the source code used. Anybody who's done some web development would have to look at those screenshots and think "all those differences could be due to just one tag/directive that's being interpreted differently by IE9"... and that different interpretation could conceivably even be more in-line with the spec than what the other browsers do (whether that's a "good" thing or not is a different discussion). So, if I had to bet, I wouldn't put my money on Microsoft being the ones in the right here... but I don't like comparing browsers' standards compliance solely based on screenshots.

alttab 16y ago
I was thinking this same thing. Glad I found it posted already. I know this is hogwash because I've made that exact IPhone interface in HTML/CSS3 for IE7, IE8, Webkit Browsers, and FF. Sure, the IE versions didn't have rounded corners or even shadows for that matter but it didn't look retarded. I would guess that the author hasn't been developing cross-browser web applications professionally for any significant length of time. IE does some dumb things with hasLayout and floating, so you generally avoid them. It also wasn't clear that the author knew that Safari and Chrome use the same rendering engine. Even with IE9 and their dumb syntax, its not impossible to learn how to make something look freaking sweet in modern browsers, and passable in IE. This position of course costs businesses thousands of dollars a year running VMs for compatibility. It makes it worse that IE9 doesn't run on XP. The entire post is a little link baity, but I certainly understand the frustration.
- rimantas 16y ago
  I've made that exact IPhone interface in HTML/CSS3 for IE7, IE8, Webkit Browsers, and FF. Sure, the IE versions didn't have rounded corners or even shadows for that matter but it didn't look retarded. So it did not have rounded corners and shadows but it was somehow exact? Interesting. Could you elaborate more, what CSS3 have you got working on IE7, IE8?

magamiako 16y ago

I like how he says he'll "prove it" without providing the actual source to what he's writing so people can download it and review. Also, I do believe IE9 has beta 5 out for the preview builds. He might want to look into that before going off about Platform Preview 4. Also, he's mistaken about MS' RC's. RC does not mean "1 version before gold", it could be 2 or 3 versions before final for that matter.

mojuba 16y ago

The web site I'm working on at the moment will reject IE altogether. I'm doing this for the first time ever in my career. A bit risky, I know. Just looked at some of my pages in IE8/9 and realized how much work I saved by not supporting this nonsensical monster that is Internet Explorer.

lenni 16y ago
What is the website's audience and is it private or for work? Whenever I've done side projects, I just build it for modern browsers and then maybe make it just a bit better than not working on the most recent IE.
Niten 16y ago
That seems sort of user-hostile, but hey, it's your call. I don't consider even IE 8 to be a burden any more. It doesn't get some CSS effects right, but stuff generally renders OK without modification. I can sort of understand blocking IE 8 if you really don't want people to see your site without border-radius or whatever, and if you don't feel like taking the time to patch it up with conditional code, and if all those lost visitors don't matter to you... But so far I've found IE 9 to be spot-on. Are you experiencing a rendering glitch with the latest beta? If not for rendering issues, then what's to be gained by blocking potential visitors or users just because you don't like their choice of software?
masklinn 16y ago
> The web site I'm working on at the moment will reject IE altogether. That is... dumb. Just don't to anything, it'll look broken in IE but no more. If you want to do something specifically about IE, add some kind of warning bar with a conditional comment. You have no idea what the future holds, and locking out a whole line of browsers out of a site is stupid.
- MichaelGG 16y ago
  And please, if you add a warning, make it to the effect of "Hey, we know there's an issue with your browser, sorry.", instead of some line about IE being evil and standards and so on.

maerek 16y ago

This is a poorly written article for two main reasons: 1) No source code. 2) Incomplete test results. Why showcase two webkit engine based web browsers (Safari and Chrome) but not include a screenshot from Firefox? 3) Factual inconsistencies. FTA:"The IE team have been chanting a mantra ad nauseum : Same Markup. That means, write once and have it render the same on all browsers. Funny, but the other browsers have been doing that for years. Seems, from the images above that it’s IE that’s unable to render the same markup." Last I checked, implementing transitions/background gradients (etc.) in CSS required a separate line for webkit, mozilla, etc.

fleitz 16y ago
Yeah I was going to comment to that effect. While the syntax is the same for rounded corners for gradients even though they use -moz and -webkit prefixes the actual syntax for the gradient is different.

ck2 16y ago

We need to start promoting ChromeFrame to every single IE user on as many sites as possible. http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/ It will solve the IE6/7/8/9 issue. The only problem is machines without the privileges to install it.

cmelbye 16y ago
Google needs to see if they can allow unprivileged users to install it (it would presumably only work on the current user, but that's better than nothing.) I'd love to use it at school, but it requires an administrator.
- jawee 16y ago
  I can load it up on my school account, but DeepFreeze keeps it off regardless. I expect between security features like DeepFreeze and user policies it would not be possible.

zacharypinter 16y ago

I wonder if he was in quirks mode by not having an appropriate doctype tag?

masklinn 16y ago

No. That's stupid. IE6 was IE6 because for more than 5 years it was the last browser of its line. The "IE8 is the new IE6" claims at least have some meat to them: IE8 is the last (edit: MS) browser running on Windows XP which means as long as Windows XP exists in significant numbers so does IE8, but this is nonsense: Firefox, Safari and Chrome are not going back into their hole, which means IE9 will not be an undisputed champion of anything which means IE9 will not be the last IE ever to run on Windows Vista and Windows 7 (unless microsoft decides to get out of the browser market entirely, but I don't see that happening). Thus IE9 can not be the new IE6. It might not be the best browser ever, but IE10 will come next and improve it, and IE11 after it. If you're grasping for parallels, IE9 is the IE5 of CSS3, not the IE6.

schammy 16y ago
What I wish is that Microsoft would just give up on MSIE. For its time, IE6 was the shit. But they let it linger for what, 6 years? Meanwhile Firefox started being awesome, and now we also have Chrome which seems to be setting the standard these days. As a web developer, MSIE has caused me nothing but hell. Versions 7 and 8 improved a lot, but they still have very annoying headaches that I am constantly dealing with. One of my biggest fantasies is Microsoft one day realizing how much they HURT rather than HINDER the web, and just throwing in the towel. "We give up." Developing their own browser does nothing for Microsoft anyways. It's not like using MSIE makes you special or makes your brand awareness of Microsoft any stronger. If they had any forethought for the future, they would just give up now. One can fantasize, anyways... :P
- willfully_lost 16y ago
  IE is worth a lot to Microsoft because of Bing. Google pays Mozilla for Google search being on the toolbar. Chrome is Google. IE is the only browser that would have Bing be the default search engine. That's worth a good amount of money to them - I can't seem them throwing up the white flag.
  - schammy 16y ago

keltex 16y ago

Lets not forget that the main problem with IE6 was that it was the primary vector that infected millions of computers with viruses and created the gigantic botnets we have today. Sure IE6's CSS compatibility and other rendering quirks are issues, but it was far overshadowed by the huge security hole it created.

Slimy 16y ago

THIS IS DATED AUGUST 14, 2010. THE IE9 BETA WASN'T EVEN OUT. Stop blindly upvoting.

est 16y ago
> Don’t believe me? OK, I’ll prove it. I have the latest Beta 4 of IE9, in Microsoft speak that means the version before Release Candidate The author is definitely a troll here.

mpiccino 16y ago

The problem I constantly find with all IE versions is that they render fonts much bigger than other browsers, so they constantly make things crowded and cause items (e.g. the About button on that screen shot) fall to the next time. It's immensely frustrating.

kokor 16y ago

1 word. BETA. Fucking fanboys are really lame.

devmonk 16y ago

What about Opera?